Anonymous wrote:So how to determine who's comfortableness trumps? He is uncomfortable interacting with women without using respectful phrase and the women are uncomfortable with him being respectful... who must be made uncomfortable in order to make the other party happy? Does the principle of equity apply? In other words, who is most capable of incurring the loss of comfort? That person should be the one to absorb to discomfort? Are the women saying that he must change because it is too much for them the bare? While most may not realize it, if that is what is really being concluded this is an anti-feminist position because it means that women require men to make them comfortable.
Anonymous wrote:There is a new hire at my agency and he's referring to every female colleague and female executive as "Ma'am" in lieu of her first name. We are very much a first name agency and people titter when he did this the first couple of times but it has become stale (he does it on email too) and it's bothering me on a lot of levels. It creates an artificial distance with female employees and to me it's an artificial politeness that doesn't reflect modern working relationships in DC. I also think he's shooting himself in the foot with agency clients.
How can I point this out to him? We are part of a top level small working group that services the rest of the agency.
Anonymous wrote:So how to determine who's comfortableness trumps? He is uncomfortable interacting with women without using respectful phrase and the women are uncomfortable with him being respectful... who must be made uncomfortable in order to make the other party happy? Does the principle of equity apply? In other words, who is most capable of incurring the loss of comfort? That person should be the one to absorb to discomfort? Are the women saying that he must change because it is too much for them the bare? While most may not realize it, if that is what is really being concluded this is an anti-feminist position because it means that women require men to make them comfortable.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Could be worse. An ex military guy at my office years ago referred to women there as, "m'lady."
I call complete and utter bullshit on this.
Anonymous wrote:ps: when reading the OP's original message again, maybe it would be helpful to the new hire to take him out to coffee or something and talk to him about the agency culture. I've had to do this myself, with new hires, just to help them out.
Anonymous wrote:Could be worse. An ex military guy at my office years ago referred to women there as, "m'lady."
Anonymous wrote:Why can't people understand that what is disturbing is that the male colleague has no problem remembering and addressing other men as individuals but treats all the women as an indistinguishable mob? That is denigrating.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think it reflects his discomfort with the females.
As OP is clearly uncomfortable with ex-military. However, if this could in fact possibly harm him at your office, then someone should bring it up to him for his own benefit and for the comfort of the NOW set.